On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 18:16:13 +0200 Norbert Lange <nolang...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 02:01:37 +0100 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C1ngel?=
<b...@debian.16bits.net> wrote:
> I have tested https://salsa.debian.org/debian/gpgme/-/merge_requests/1
> and it works fine.
> I would however name the new package gpgme-json, not libgpgme-bin
>
> The package is only providing gpgme-json(1). If it is going to ship
> more binaries in the future, it can always be replaced. If someone is
> told they need gpgme-json the expected package name is 'gpgme-json',
> not libgpgme-bin. Plus, that lib prefix is even more confusing.
>
> Even the description (“This package contains the gpgme-json binary to
> access GPGME...”) seem to ask for that name.
>
> That is the only nitpick I have. It "just works". :-)
>
> The debian/changelog would need updating, and rebased on top of gpgme
> 1.18 (bookworm/sid) from the current 1.14.
How about just playing the binary into a package name "gpgme", like Fedora does
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/gpgme/gpgme/fedora-rawhide.html#files
gpgme as package name is potentially confusing, because it could convey
the impression of a meta package.
Regarding libgpgme-bin, there is maybe a little inconsistency in that
libgpgme-dev already contains another executable.
So I'm throwing my hat in the ring for gpgme-json :)
That said: naming is important and naming is hard, but three years have
passed, and it is my impression that this is getting somewhat out of
proportion.
--
PGP: 84F59CAFB6618B1D01C992A6D0462C2C9FB57726
